design_review

design_review is a command for Claude Code from HalidSaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp. It costs 30 tokens per session (1,360 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A command for reviewing an existing website, app, or landing page against the SaglitzDesign method and its design checklists.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect an existing interface and identify design problems or improvements.
Why use it?
It provides a structured critique of visual design, layout, components, and search considerations instead of relying only on memory or personal taste.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: disable-model-invocation in frontmatter.

Part of the saglitzdesign plugin — 9 skills, 10 commands, 2 MCP servers shipped together

Good fit Use it to inspect an existing interface and identify design problems or improvements.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HalidSaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install saglitzdesign, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 9 skills, 10 commands, 2 MCP servers.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for design_review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for design_review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/halidsaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp/design_review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 30 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,360 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00030 $0.01360
Opus 5 $0.00015 $0.00680
Sonnet 5 $0.00006 $0.00272
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00136

Measured 4d ago against content hash 81bac7a39636, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

design_review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 4d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

commands/design_review.md · 67 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Do an expert design review, using the SaglitzDesign method.

You have the SaglitzDesign tools available. Use them — do not design from memory.

Knowledge (judgement):

  • get_design_roadmap(project_type) — the phased plan; call FIRST on any build.
  • search_design_knowledge(query) / get_design_doc(id) — rules & specs. Ids also readable as saglitzdesign://doc/{id}.
  • get_component_guidance(component, platform) — per-component specs + patterns.
  • get_design_language(language) — Material 3 / Liquid Glass / iOS / Android / macOS / visionOS / Fluent / web-trends / tokens.
  • compare_design_languages(topic, platforms) — how each platform solves one surface, and what NOT to port.
  • get_design_examples(query, platform) — curated real-world example screens.
  • seo_geo_guide(scope, topic) — SEO & GEO for web.

Generators (real output, not advice — prefer these over inventing values):

  • create_design_system(brand_color, vibe, platform) — the one-call foundation: direction card + color + fonts + icons + type scale + elevation + tokens + component list.
  • generate_layout_system(preset) — breakpoints, containers, grid, container queries, section rhythm.
  • generate_color_system / suggest_font_pairing / suggest_icon_library / generate_type_scale / generate_elevation_system / generate_motion / generate_design_tokens — the individual layers.
  • get_component_recipe(component, stack) — production-ready accessible code for button/input/modal/toast/card/switch/tabs/empty-state/list-row/navigation/search/select/table/tooltip/form/pagination/skeleton/badge/breadcrumb.
  • fix_contrast(foreground, background, target) — the corrected color value, not just a fail report.

Auditors (deterministic gates — run these before claiming done):

  • audit_accessibility(contrast_pairs, tap_targets) — exact WCAG ratios and target sizes.
  • design_lint(code) — design & a11y anti-patterns with line numbers.
  • audit_design_system(code) — consistency score + value sprawl across the whole codebase.
  • audit_project(path) — the same auditors over a real directory instead of a pasted snippet, ranked worst-file-first. Prefer this when you have the source on disk.
  • audit_generic_design(code) — the specific defaults generated interfaces reach for (stock indigo/violet/purple gradient, Inter as the only family, the rounded-2xl card recipe, gradient headings, eyebrow-on-every-heading, three or more animate-pulse/shimmer placeholders). Facts about source, not taste. A genuine indigo brand still flags.
  • audit_ux_copy(text) — readability, passive voice, jargon, weak CTAs.
  • audit_ethical_design(code) — named deceptive-pattern tells in a pasted snippet (confirmshaming decline copy, a pre-checked marketing checkbox, literal scarcity/deadline copy with no live binding, Accept all without Reject all). Facts about source, not a verdict. Pair with get_design_doc("ethical-design").
  • audit_apple_ui(path) — iOS/macOS project directory. Reads configuration and Swift. Directory only; no snippet mode.
  • audit_android_ui(path) — Android project directory. Reads the manifest, resource XML and Compose. Directory only; no snippet mode.
  • measure_screenshot(path, scale, format) — measures a PNG screenshot's real palette, contrast ratios, density and structure, and names a stock-region fact when a significant cluster sits in Tailwind indigo/violet/purple. Use it whenever you have an image file rather than source.
  • design_review_checklist(project_type, focus) — the assembled audit checklist.

Sequence

  1. Identify the project type (website / landing-page / mobile-app / macos-app / dashboard). If it's a URL or running app and a browser tool is available, open it and screenshot mobile + desktop; otherwise review the code/design provided.
  2. Measure before you opine. If you have the source, run the deterministic auditors first and let their output drive the findings:
    • design_lint(code) — anti-patterns with line numbers.
    • audit_design_system(code) — is there actually a system, or is every screen re-deciding the basics? This is the finding senior reviewers make and juniors miss.
    • audit_accessibility on the real color pairs and target sizes; fix_contrast for each failure.
    • audit_ux_copy on the primary headlines, CTAs and error messages.
    • audit_ethical_design on consent, decline, urgency and checkout copy when the surface has any of those.
    • measure_screenshot(path) — when you are reviewing a screenshot file rather than source, this is the equivalent of the auditors above: real palette, real contrast ratios, real spacing. If a significant cluster sits in Tailwind indigo/violet/purple, the report names that as a stock-region fact — keep it if it is the brand.
  3. Run design_review_checklist for that type, plus a focused pass where it matters (accessibility, conversion, seo, copywriting).
  4. Score against get_design_doc("design-critique-scoring") (0–40) with per-heuristic notes.
  5. Report findings ranked by severity (P0→P3): what's wrong, why (cite the rule/doc, or the measured number), and the concrete fix. Separate "must fix" from "polish". Lead with anything the tools measured — a stated ratio of 2.9:1 or a score of 41/100 ends an argument that an opinion cannot.
  6. If asked, apply the top fixes and re-run the auditors to show the delta.

Read the full file on GitHub · 67 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 4d ago Changed · +5 lines 81bac7a39636
  2. 8d ago First seen · 62 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A de4ac3ec1282

Subscribe to this mod's changes

design_review is a command published in the GitHub repository HalidSaglam/saglitzdesign-mcp (5 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,360 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.